Past, present, and future of basin AUTHORS

and petroleum system modeling Friedemann Baur ~ Chevron, 1500

Louisiana St., Houston, Texas 77002;
friedemann.baur@chevron.com
Friedemann Baur, Allegra Hosford Scheirer, and Friedemann Baur has worked as a petroleum
Kenneth E. Peters systems analyst at Chevron Energy Technology
Company since 2013. He received his master’s
from University of Cologne, Germany, in 2005,
and his Ph.D. from RWTH Aachen University,
ABSTRACT Germany, in 2010. He worked for two years at
Basin and petroleum system modeling (BPSM) has had increasing IES (Integrated Exploration Systems, now
impact on industry decisions related to exploration and new Schlumberger) as a project geologist and three
venture opportunities over the last decade. Basin and petroleum years for BP working on exploration, appraisal,
and development projects focusing on basin
system modeling technology, usability, and user group size have
modeling and geochemistry.
grown as a result of its capacity to reduce exploration risk. Based
on current statistics, improvements in BPSM have significant Allegra Hosford Scheirer ~
potential to reduce future well failures, particularly when caused Department of Geological Sciences,
by lack of petroleum charge. To bring BPSM practitioners from Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall,
academia and industry together, an AAPG Hedberg Research Stanford, California 94305; allegras@
stanford.edu
Conference was organized to discuss the latest developments and
issues in this field. A survey was conducted during the conference Allegra Hosford Scheirer is a research scientist
in Santa Barbara, California (April 2016), and this paper sum- at Stanford University where she co-directs the
Basin and Petroleum System Modeling
marizes the results. A key takeaway was an overarching consensus
Industrial Affiliates Program. Prior to Stanford,
throughout the BPSM community that improved understanding Allegra was a research geophysicist at the US
of hydrocarbon migration and more flexible workflows are nec- Geological Survery (USGS). She is the editor of
essary to better assess charge and migration risk in exploration and USGS Professional Paper 1713 and a past
new ventures. In addition, BPSM is increasingly used to predict associate editor of the Journal of Geophysical
pore pressure and porosity at field scales, which opens new op- Research. Allegra’s degrees are from the
portunities to integrate BPSM workflows with other technologies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Woods
such as seismic rock property analysis and reservoir quality Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program
in oceanography (Ph.D.) and Brown University
modeling. In this paper, we discuss these and other issues that
(geology-physics/math).
arose from in-depth discussion and an online survey.
Kenneth E. Peters ~ Department of
Geological Sciences, Stanford University, 450
Serra Mall, Stanford, California 94305;
INTRODUCTION Schlumberger, 18 Manzanita Place, Mill
Valley, California 94941; kpeters2@slb.com
Over the last decade, three-dimensional (3-D) modeling of the
Kenneth E. Peters (Schlumberger science
subsurface through time has emerged as a major research focus of
advisor) has published about 160 geology, geo-
the petroleum industry. As petroleum has become more difficult chemistry, and basin modeling books and
to find and reserves more challenging to replace, basin and pe- papers. He is an AAPG Charles Taylor Fellow,
troleum system modeling (BPSM) has grown because of its ability Geochemical Society Fellow, Schlumberger
to quantitatively estimate the generated, migrated, accumulated, NExT instructor, and Stanford adjunct
and lost hydrocarbons over geological time, as well as the final professor, where he co-leads the Basin and
Petroleum System Modeling Industrial
Affiliates Program (https://bpsm.stanford.edu).
Copyright ©2018. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Ken holds the 2009 Geochemical Society Alfred
Manuscript received January 20, 2017; provisional acceptance May 23, 2017; revised manuscript received June
Treibs Medal, 2013 AAPG Honorary Member
12, 2017; final acceptance August 28, 2017. Award, 2016 EAGE Alfred Wegener Award,
DOI:10.1306/08281717049

AAPG Bulletin, v. 102, no. 4 (April 2018), pp. 549–561 549

 and 2017 Heritage of the Petroleum Geologist
Award. He has a Ph.D. in geochemistry from
University of California, Los Angeles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Jianchang Liu, Melanie Everette,
Bjorn Wygrala, and two anonymous
reviewers for their useful comments to
improve this paper.
550 Past, Present, and Future of Basin and Petroleum System Modeling
preserved resources today. Virtually all major oil companies and
government and academic institutions recognize the usefulness
of these models for two primary reasons. (1) They add value by
converting static and disconnected data to dynamic processed
and interconnected concepts, which can be quantified and visu-
alized. (2) They allow assessment of resource densities and risk
by highlighting prospective areas while providing a means to
conduct charge risk; seal competence; and fluid property, tem-
perature, pressure, and porosity prediction. Basin and petroleum
system modeling can provide a geoscience framework to conduct
and record a wide variety of applied and basic research. Basin and
petroleum system modeling is a tool that will continue to attract
new users because it facilitates low-cost quantification and highly
effective solutions in exploration and appraisal activities.
Although BPSM is widely used by governments, industry, and
academia, a variety of technical challenges remain. These relate
mainly to petroleum generation (kinetics), migration physics,
timing, in situ alteration of fluids, complex geological settings, and
how to populate rock properties in models in a geologically rea-
sonable way. Advances in these topics will have major effects on
the workflows of the future. In this paper, we report the results of
an online survey and ensuing in-depth conversations regarding
approaches for addressing the above challenges.
Specific questions for the BPSM community are as follows.
(1) How do we impact decision-making in the exploration and
production process? (2) How can we increase this impact? These
questions are not easy to answer, because BPSM is a relatively
young discipline commonly used as a one-way technology where
data from other disciplines are used as input. However, the basin
model predictions are generally not used for other disciplines as
input (e.g., pore pressure and reservoir quality prediction). This
one-way usage, however, is slowly changing and will be discussed
later in the paper.
An analysis of discovery and recovery efficiency by Weimer
and Slatt (2006) clearly demonstrated how advances in seismic
technology since the 1950s positively affected exploration success
within the United States over the last 40 yr (Figure 1). For
a discipline like BPSM, which formulates a coherent story by
integrating existing data, it is more difficult to quantify effect.
Basin and petroleum system modeling is not as fundamental as
seismic technology and depends on the seismic interpretation for
geologic input. Unlike seismic technology, BPSM is used mostly
by experts and not by exploration geologists.
A mismatch exists between the source of well failures and
where industry has traditionally focused interest and research. For
example, a well failure study carried out by Schlumberger in-
dicates that seal and charge are the main reasons for failure of most
prospects (Rayeva et al., 2014). However, the main research focus
of exploration geologists is on reservoir and trap according to the
 Figure 1. The effect of seismic
technology on discovery and re-
covery efficiency (dashed line) is
shown throughout 50 yr for the
United States (after Weimer and
Slatt, 2006; used with permission
from AAPG). Gray line represents
a normalized curve. Gray arrows
indicate major technology de-
velopments, and white arrows
show timing of key concepts for
deep water settings. 3-D = three-
dimensional; 4-D = four-
dimensional.

AAPG Annual Conference and Exhibition contri-
butions from 2012 to 2016 (Figure 2B, C). In this
study, seal accounted for 45% of well failures, and
charge accounted for 30%. However, these elements
represented only 2% and 14% of the research focus
(Figure 2B, C). In contrast, poor quality or missing
reservoir accounted for 10% of the well failures
but received almost 70% of the research focus
(Figure 2B, C).
Taken together, these data show that the key risk
elements of seal and charge are not yet rigorously
addressed and that increasing research focus in these
areas could prove beneficial. Decreasing the number
of well failures because of improved assessment of
charge may increase the effect of BPSM over the next
decade. A growing BPSM community as evidenced by
increasing archived AAPG abstracts containing “basin
modeling” for the years between 1980 and 2010 is
a step in the right direction. However, the current
misalignment of risk and research focus needs to be
recognized.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
In the late 1970s, early computer programs were
developed to quantify subsurface processes such as
burial history and source rock maturation through

Figure 2. Mismatch between

high exploration risk elements
and research interest of the
exploration community. The
misalignment suggests that
basin and petroleum system
modeling is a key factor and
opportunity to affect future
exploration research. (A) Data
derived from Rayeva et al.
(2014). Summaries of the AAPG
Annual Conference and Exhibition (ACE) technical programs in (B) 2012 and (C) 2016. SLB = Schlumberger.

BAUR ET AL. 551

time (Hantschel and Kauerauf, 2009). This was the
time when the precursors of PetroMod® and Temis®
were developed out of an academic interest. The
fundamentals of petroleum geochemistry and pe-
troleum geology were well established by the time of
publication of the works by Tissot and Welte (1978)
and Hunt (1979).
During the mid-1980s, Platte River Associate’s
BasinMod 1D® was the first commercially available
tool to simulate burial history, temperature, and ma-
turity using the DOS system and applying the time
temperature index (Waples, 1980). During the
early 1990s, Institut Français du Pétrole/Beicip
developed Temis, and Integrated Exploration Sys-
tems developed the precursor of PetroMod, both
with full two-dimensional (2-D) pressure/temperature
and Darcy flow migration model capabilities.
Integrated Exploration Systems developed a 2-D
package that was directly coupled with seismic data
to provide better workflows for 2-D geological models.
At the same time, independent oil companies
started to develop their own computer programs,
such as the precursor of Genesis by Arco, Cauldron
by Shell, and Stellar by Exxon. Statoil did not have
their own system but supported developments
at Sinteff and Oyvind Sylta’s Semi program. The
proprietary programs were different in the sense
that they mainly focused on individual aspects of
BPSM, e.g., on source rock maturation and gener-
ation and expulsion of hydrocarbons. Secondary
Figure 3. Basin modeling us-
age in exploration and produc-
tion industry in 1997 shows that
one-dimensional (1-D) models
were standard, whereas three-
dimensional (3-D) modeling was
very seldom applied (after Marzi
and Crowley, 2003; used with
permission from AAPG). 2-D =
two-dimensional.
552 Past, Present, and Future of Basin and Petroleum System Modeling
migration was integrated later. Temis and PetroMod
continuously improved to become fast, powerful,
and comprehensive during the late 1990s and in-
cluded the EASY%Ro scheme (Sweeney and Burnham,
1990). They were able to quantify not only indi-
vidual processes but the complex interactions be-
tween these processes in one-dimensional (1-D), in
2-D, and partially in 3-D and incorporated three-
phase fluid flow migration simulators. In 1998,
Permedia released the first invasion percolation (IP)
migration method with basin modeling. All of the
basic technical elements of current modeling tech-
nology were therefore commercially available by
the late 1990s.
In 1996 a benchmark study was sponsored by
a major oil company to analyze how basin modeling
expertise was applied across the industry (Marzi and
Crowley, 2003). The study revealed that only 1-D
basin models were routinely employed in house,
that 2-D models were used in half the projects and
sometimes outsourced, and that 3-D models were
only occasionally constructed and all were in house
(Figure 3). From personal communications with basin
modelers across the industry, it seems that today, 3-D
modeling is routinely applied and that 1-D is almost
exclusively used for calibration, display, or test pur-
poses. Based on the study, it is not possible to de-
termine how many exploration projects from the
overall exploration portfolio were supplemented by
BPSM.
SURVEY Table 1. Question 1: What Was Your Main Motivation to Attend
This Conference?
Since the 1996 study (Marzi and Crowley, 2003), no
Response Response
comparable survey was acquired, and the frequency of
Answer Options Percent (%) Count
the application of basin modeling in exploration and
the overall complexity of industry projects remained (1) To share your work 39.6 21
unclear. To better understand how basin modeling (2) To see other people’s work 47.2 25
is used in exploration and appraisal, academia, re- (3) To network 13.2 7
search, and government organizations, a multiple- (4) To enjoy the beach 0.0 0
choice questionnaire was distributed to all participants
Responses show that most participants joined the AAPG Hedberg Research
of the AAPG Hedberg Research Conference on the Conference to see other people’s work. Of the participants, 53 answered this
Future of Basin and Petroleum System Modeling, question, and 0 skipped it.
held in Santa Barbara, California, April 3–8, 2016.
The questionnaire included 14 questions about how SURVEY RESULTS
people build basin models and how the results are
applied during exploration and appraisal decision- Question 1: Motivation for Participation
making. David Curry will present the results of
a second survey in a future issue, focusing on the Nearly half the respondents attended the Hedberg
most important future directions in BPSM (Curry, Research Conference to see the scientific work of
2018). That survey focuses on how to improve others (Table 1). The meeting consisted of oral and
BPSM and future research directions, whereas the poster sessions on rock properties and pressure pre-
questionnaire presented here focuses on a de- diction, case studies, fluid migration, geochemis-
scription of the current status of basin modeling try, geodynamics and heat flow, risk and uncertainty,
usage. new tools and workflows, and structural and strati-
The questionnaire for the study described in this graphic complexity. These themes grew naturally
paper was designed in multiple-choice format to from the abstracts submitted for consideration by the
make the answering process easy and to encourage conference conveners.
participation. Of the 98 registered participants, 53
answered the questionnaire. Some questions were
skipped by individuals, which resulted in 47 answers Question 2: Software Preference
for question 7. Most questions have more than 50
answers. The survey did not track background in- Most participants (56.6%) answered that they use
formation of the participants to maintain anonymity, PetroMod most commonly as a modeling tool, whereas
but every participant was assigned a random identi- 17% use Temis (Table 2). Thirteen percent use Trinity,
fication number so that it is possible to track the and another 13% use software like MigMOD, Migris,
answers that belong together (i.e., the same user Novva, TecMod, or proprietary software. Personal
identification). communications with colleagues across the industry
Although no direct association between the in-
dividuals who answered the survey and their pro- Table 2. Question 2: Which Basin Modeling Tool Do You Use
fessional affiliations can be made, we assume that the Most Frequently?
participants in the survey reflect the overall affiliation
Response Response
composition of conference participants: 62.2% came Answer Options Percent (%) Count
from the industry (exploration and production and
service), 27.6% were from academic institutions, and (1) Temis 17.0 9
10.2% were from government organizations. Many (2) Trinity 13.2 7
major and smaller oil companies were represented, as (3) PetroMod 56.6 30
were large and small software companies. (4) Other (please specify) 13.2 7
A select number of questions will be discussed in Responses show that PetroMod is dominant. Of the participants, 53 answered this
the next section. question, and 0 skipped it.

BAUR ET AL. 553

Table 3. Question 3: Which Statement Best Describes the observations (Table 4). Based on discussions during
Approach You Most Often Use to Determine the Charge Risk for the conference, there are still fundamental differences
a Prospect? in the way that people perceive migration. Curry’s
survey results (Curry, 2018) also indicate a need to
Response Response
better understand petroleum migration.
Answer Options Percent (%) Count

(1) I use the risking functionality 29.4 15

provided by the basin modeling Question 5: Calibration of Migration
software (PetroMod, Trinity, Temis,
etc.). Question 5 focuses not only on migration uncertainty
(2) I do not use the risking 21.6 11 but on all factors influencing migration. The answers
functionalities in the basin show that just over 20% concentrate solely on source
modeling software. rock uncertainties, but almost 80% try to calibrate
(3) I use basin modeling outputs 27.5 14 their fluid distributions by incorporating information
together with company proprietary related to plumbing system and migration technol-
“QUANTITATIVE” risking tools. ogies (Table 5). In question 4 the BPSM community
(4) I use basin modeling outputs 21.6 11 agreed that we have little understanding of migration
together with company proprietary
“QUALITATIVE” risking tools.
Table 4. Question 4: Which Statement about Migration Analysis
Responses show that there is no dominant workflow to determine the charge risk of Do You Think Is Most Appropriate?
a prospect. Of the participants, 51 answered this question, and 2 skipped it.
Response Response
Answer Options Percent (%) Count
suggests that Trinity might be underrepresented in this
survey because people commonly use commercial (1) We (BPSM community) do not 10.2 5
packages in combination, but the survey limited the understand how migration works,
respondent to just one choice. so all migration solvers are wrong
(processes and controls). I apply
ray tracing/flow path and achieve
Question 3: Charge Risk Assessment good results.
(2) I believe that Darcy flow is the 18.4 9
The approach to assess charge risk for a prospect only physically correct migration
seems to vary almost evenly between using the method. Progress in computing
software risking tools, not using software risking tools, power allows testing many
using the software in combination with quantitative scenarios in a short time. Darcy
risking tools, or using the software with qualitative flow will give me best results
proprietary risking tools (Table 3). We interpret these possible.
results to indicate that risking procedures are subject (3) Invasion percolation (IP) is a fast 20.4 10
to specific regulations depending on the company and accurate method. I understand
and that industry does not apply a uniform risking the assumptions and limitations,
procedure. and I can achieve excellent results
using IP.
(4) I apply any migration method 51.0 25
Question 4: Migration Analysis and run many different scenarios to
match calibration data. If calibration
There seems to be community-wide agreement that data are matched, the results
we do not understand migration (primary, secondary, should be fine.
or tertiary) very well. This is clearly expressed by the
fact that greater than 50% of survey respondents Responses clearly show varying opinions on the optimal migration physics in basin
and petroleum system models. Of the participants, 49 answered this question,
would use any migration method (Darcy, IP, Flow- and 4 skipped it.
path, or combinations) to calibrate the basin model to Abbreviation: BPSM = basin and petroleum system modeling.

554 Past, Present, and Future of Basin and Petroleum System Modeling
Table 5. Question 5: How Do You Normally Calibrate Migration 4. Nature of seal influencing when and what column
to Match Available Fluid Data? height the prospect could hold (e.g., correlating
with phase, lithology, and burial history).
Response Response
Answer Options Percent (%) Count
If each uncertainty parameter were populated
(1) I change source rock depth, 8.3 4 with a base, low, and high case, we would end up
presence, and maturity. with X3 combinations where X is the number of
(2) As above, plus I change source 12.5 6 uncertainties. Using four uncertainty parameters
rock character (including kinetics). results in 43 or 64 possible scenarios for migration.
(3) As above, plus I change carrier 39.6 19 Most modelers feel comfortable to describe their
bed, faults, and other parameters petroleum system of investigation without running
affecting the plumbing system. all possible combinations. We may have good un-
(4) As above, plus I change 39.6 19 derstanding of the range of specific uncertainty
parameters specific to the parameters, but more commonly, modelers narrow
migration method I am using. the options and focus on a single explanation. For
Responses show that most modelers (almost 80%) assume that the basin model example an extreme scenario is that basalt could be
migration is strongly influenced by the plumbing system of the carrier beds and interpreted as carbonate, based on seismic veloci-
the migration algorithm. Of the participants, 48 answered this question, and 5
skipped it.
ties, which would have a dramatic effect on the
petroleum system and the charge model.
One reason why the preferred number of mi-
behavior. Accordingly, instead of changing parame-
gration models or scenarios does not exceed 15 might
ters unique to a particular migration method to cal-
be because of differences in the perceived meaning
ibrate a model (e.g., noise forced onto the IP method),
of “migration models” in the survey. Some survey
it may be more reasonable to test different migration
participants interpreted the term to represent fun-
methods with different physical driving mechanisms.
damentally different geological concepts based on
Overall, modelers use a wide variety of methods to
the discussion we had at the end of the conference.
calibrate migration, and there appears to be no
Assuming that each geological concept requires sev-
standardized workflow that the community as a
eral migration runs to be analyzed, this would increase
whole follows.
the number for migration models or scenarios.

Question 6: Number of Migration Scenarios

Question 7: Faults
Almost 70% of modelers use 0–15 scenarios to test
charge risk for prospects (Table 6). Approximately Faults and how to deal with them in basin modeling
21% use 16–35 scenarios, and only a small fraction use represent a challenge (Karlsen and Skeie, 2006).
more scenarios. Despite large uncertainties whether fluids move along
The community admitted that migration is one or across faults (Bjørlykke et al., 2005), it is surprising
of the key challenges of BPSM. Most participants
identified three or four key uncertainty parameters Table 6. Question 6: How Many Migration Models or Scenarios
that affect petroleum migration (based on responses Do You Usually Test to Analyze Charge Risk for a Prospect?
in question 5), including some/all of the following.
Answer Options Response Percent (%) Response Count
1. Source rock depth and overall geometry (e.g., (1) 0–15 68.8 33
correlating with fetch area, temperature gradient, (2) 16–35 20.8 10
or heat flow). (3) 36–60 6.3 3
2. Source rock character (e.g., total organic carbon, (4) >60 4.2 2
hydrogen index, and source rock thickness).
Responses show that most modelers use fewer than 16 migration scenarios to
3. Plumbing system (e.g., correlating with migration evaluate charge risk for a prospect. Of the participants, 48 answered this
efficiency and nature of carrier system). question, and 5 skipped it.

BAUR ET AL. 555

Table 7. Question 7: How Do You Typically Deal with Faults?
Response
Answer Options Percent (%)
(1) By default, faults are closed for
migration along and across.
(2) By default, faults are open for
migration along and across.
(3) I implement faults only if I have
hard evidence as to whether they
are open or closed. Otherwise, I
limit the inclusion of faults.
(4) By default, the shallow faults are
open, and the deep faults are
closed.
Responses show that faults are not commonly used in the basin and petroleum
system modeling models unless required. Of the participants, 47 answered this
question, and 6 skipped it.
to see that most modelers implement faults only
when they have hard evidence of fault behavior
(Table 7). New ventures or early exploration seldom
has hard evidence for fault properties through time,
and hence, most participants do not implement faults
in their basin models.
Two questions arise from the responses to this
question. Should faults that are determined from
seismic evidence be tested by different migration
scenarios although we do not have hard evidence of
their physical properties? Should conceptual repre-
sentations of faults along the migration pathways be
inferred and tested? This topic needs further treat-
ment by the BPSM community.
Question 8: Reservoir Quality
Almost half of the participants (answer 1 plus an-
swer 4) are directly or indirectly involved in per-
forming reservoir quality prediction. Approximately
17% of modelers try to convince their colleagues
that BPSM has good potential to support reser-
voir quality prediction (Table 8). However, most
modelers are not routinely involved in this aspect
of prospect assessment. Ideally, the basin modeler
works closely with reservoir quality experts to con-
strain temperature and effective stress through time
and finally predict porosity. In addition, fluid in-
clusion, fission track, and paragenesis results can
be iteratively integrated with basin modeling to
improve predictions (Schoener et al., 2008). Sup-
port for reservoir quality prediction by BPSM is only
Response
possible when accurate pore pressure prediction is
Count
done using basin models.
12.8 6
6.4 3
Question 9: Pressure Prediction
Pore pressure prediction is another endeavor similar
74.5 35
to reservoir prediction in which basin modeling
can have a significant effect on exploration and
appraisal. Most respondents (55%) sometimes use
6.4 3 BPSM for pore pressure prediction, whereas 11%
do not predict pore pressure with basin models
(Table 9). Approximately 8% of the participants
perform pore pressure prediction without the use of
basin modeling. The availability of fast 3-D basin
modeling tools is fundamental to pore pressure
prediction and to reservoir quality support. How-
ever, until the 1990s, no powerful 3-D modeling
software was available; thus, 1-D modeling
was routinely applied, and 3-D modeling was rare
(Marzi and Crowley, 2003). Therefore, it is not
surprising that the involvement of basin modeling is
only going to increase over time.
Question 10: Maturity Assessment
The main focus of this question was to determine the
approach used to generate maturity maps, without
focusing on the uncertainty of that process. It is clear
Table 8. Question 8: Do You Use Basin Modeling to Predict
Reservoir Quality?
Response Response
Answer Options Percent (%) Count
(1) Yes, most of the time. 15.1 8
(2) Very seldom. 37.7 20
(3) I try to demonstrate to 17.0 9
management that basin modeling
has capacity to predict reservoir
quality.
(4) Sedimentologists or reservoir 30.2 16
specialists predict reservoir quality
using tools such as Touchstone with
some help from the basin modeler.
Responses show that basin modelers do not commonly address reservoir quality.
Of the participants, 53 answered this question, and 0 skipped it.

556 Past, Present, and Future of Basin and Petroleum System Modeling
Table 9. Question 9: Do You Use Basin Modeling to Predict Pore Table 11. Question 11: Which Method Best Describes Your
Pressure? Approach toward Evaluating Source Rock Presence?

Response Response Response Response

Answer Options Percent (%) Count Answer Options Percent (%) Count
(1) Yes, frequently. 26.4 14 (1) I look at fluid and seep data (also 38.0 19
(2) Sometimes. 54.7 29 rock and petrophysical data, if
(3) No, and I do not do pressure 11.3 6 available).
prediction at all. (2) As above, plus plate tectonic 24.0 12
(4) I am doing pore pressure 7.5 4 reconstructions on GDE maps.
prediction but without using the (3) As above, plus paleoclimate 20.0 10
basin modeling approach. modeling data.
(4) I perform isostatic unloading to 18.0 9
Responses show that greater than 80% of the basin and petroleum system
modeling community use basin models for pore pressure prediction. Of the reconstruct the basin shape for the
participants, 53 answered this question, and 0 skipped it. time of source rock deposition and
combine this with all data listed
above.
from the answers that only a small group relies solely
on a thermal gradient method (Table 10). Instead, Responses show that the majority (38%) of participants evaluate source rock
most respondents (49%) use a comprehensive ap- presence through standard methods. Of the participants, 50 answered this
question, and 3 skipped it.
proach combining thermal gradient with heat flow and Abbreviation: GDE = gross depositional environment.
additional thermal data. The second largest group uses
only heat flow (30%).
seismic property calibration and subsequent mod-
eling, which is covered by question 12 (Table 11).
Most modelers (38%) rely on direct measurements
Question 11: Source Rock Presence
to assess source rock properties. Merging responses
Source rock presence can be evaluated by reconstruct- 2 and 3 indicates that 44% of respondents use
ing paleoenvironment, by analyzing source rock paleoreconstructed gross depositional environment
samples from outcrops or wells, by analyzing pet- (GDE) maps or paleoclimate modeling to support
rophysical logs, and/or by the occurrence of hy- their conventional source rock scenarios. Only 18%
drocarbons seeps. Not included in question 11 is the apply an isostatic unloading workflow, which sup-
plements information on paleoclimate and GDE map
reconstructions.
Table 10. Question 10: What Is Your Standard Approach to
Generate Maturity or Thermal Stress Maps?
Question 12: Lithology Population
Response Response
Answer Options Percent (%) Count
Although rock properties from seismic facies are
(1) Mainly a geothermal gradient 5.7 3 a popular topic based on published literature and
data–based approach. AAPG conference contributions, this survey sug-
(2) Mainly a heat flow–based 30.2 16 gests that is has little influence on the basin mod-
approach. eling community. Only 20% of participants admit
(3) A mix of heat flow and thermal 15.1 8 that they would populate the lithologies in basin
gradient approaches. models using geostatistics and seismic rock prop-
(4) A mix of heat flow and thermal 49.1 26 erties (Table 12). Greater than 66% of respondents
gradient approaches and other populate rock properties by constructing GDE
methods/data to constrain the maps supplemented by outcrop and well data. The
temperatures. results are not tool specific, because all tools can
Greater than 60% of participants assess the thermal regime by applying a mix of import high-resolution lithology information to be
approaches. Of the participants, 53 answered this question, and 0 skipped it. used for migration analysis.

BAUR ET AL. 557

Table 12. Question 12: How Do You Typically Populate Table 14. Question 14: What Is Most Important to You?
Lithologies in a Basin Model?
Response Response
Response Response Answer Options Percent (%) Count
Answer Options Percent (%) Count
(1) That BPSM has a biannual 42.0 21
(1) One set of GDE maps. 32.7 16 meeting similar to the IMOG.
(2) Several different GDE maps 34.7 17 (2) That BPSM has its own society. 12.0 6
representing different (3) That BPSM has its own journal. 16.0 8
interpretations. (4) That BPSM has a home in the 22.0 11
(3) Geostatistical and seismic 20.4 10 existing meeting/society/journal
property approach. associated with geochemistry.
(4) I only evaluate the seals for rock 12.2 6 (5) Other (please specify). 8.0 4
properties.
Responses show that attendees wish to continue holding regular research meetings.
Responses show that geostatistical methods for populating rock properties are Of the participants, 50 answered this question, and 3 skipped it.
unpopular. Of the participants, 49 answered this question, and 4 skipped it. Abbreviations: BPSM = basin and petroleum system modeling; IMOG = In-
Abbreviation: GDE = gross depositional environment. ternational Meeting of Organic Geochemistry.

Question 13: Future Research Focus the most important topic for future research. Many
participants (15.1%) answered “other” for this ques-
This question about future research overlaps with
tion and supplemented their response with com-
Curry’s survey (Curry, 2018). Because the same
ments mainly associated with risk and uncertainty
community was asked for their opinion on future
analysis, thereby supporting answer 5. In contrast,
research, it is not surprising that the results are
thermal maturity prediction and source rock pres-
nearly identical. The most popular answer, at 28%
ence represented the lowest need for future research.
(answer 5) of survey respondents, suggested that the
This could be because of well-established workflows
need to improve workflows and risk evaluation
on those topics.
methods should be the primary focus of future re-
search (Table 13). Followed closely at 26.4% were
those who view migration and expulsion issues as Question 14: Most Important for Basin and
Petroleum System Modeling Community
Table 13. Question 13: Which of the Items below Should Be the
Primary Focus of Future Research in Basin and Petroleum System A lively discussion on the future of the BPSM dis-
Modeling? cipline concluded the meeting. Attendees voted
favorably for continuing to hold Hedberg Research
Response Response Conferences on an every-other-year basis (Table 14).
Answer Options Percent (%) Count
(1) Studies related to pressure, rock 18.9 10
mechanics, and facies population. PATTERNS IN THE SURVEY RESULTS
(2) Studies related to better maturity 3.8 2
modeling. We attempted to reveal associations among survey
(3) Studies related to better 7.5 4 responses using both descriptive and statistical
predicting source rock presence. methods. Statistical hierarchical clustering analysis
(4) Studies focusing on migration 26.4 14 revealed that no robust grouping could be established.
and expulsion-related uncertainties. Descriptive statistics were applied mainly focusing on
(5) Studies on improving general 28.3 15 the differences and similarities of different software
workflows and risk methods. user groups within the BPSM community. The fol-
(6) Other (please specify). 15.1 8 lowing statements can be made.
Responses show that most participants agree that hydrocarbon migration and
charge risking workflows need more focus in future research. Of the par- • Temis users are the group with the most people
ticipants, 53 answered the question, and 0 skipped it. running a high number of migration scenarios to

558 Past, Present, and Future of Basin and Petroleum System Modeling
 determine charge risk (see Table 15: highest per-
centage in question 6/answer 2 is in the Temis user
group, whereas Trinity and PetroMod have highest
values in question 6/answer 1). Most Trinity and
PetroMod users run not more than 15 different
migration models. This is a surprising result because
a fast and simple migration algorithm in Trinity
enables the user to run and test more scenarios
compared with full physics Temis or PetroMod
solutions, which need more time.
• Opinions on how to deal with faults seem to be
most aligned within the PetroMod user group
because over 80% of the participants indicated
that only in the case of hard evidence would
faults be integrated into the model (question
7/answer 3). Temis users concur with 67% (high
number in question 7/answer 3). Only the Trinity
community is split into two parties: one using
closed fault properties by default (question
7/answer 1) and the other party using fault prop-
erties only in the event of hard evidence (question
7/answer 3).
• In terms of calibrating migration, the PetroMod
user group answered question 5 by using all four
possible answers (question 5/answers 1–4) with
most saying they would change the geological con-
cept to calibrate migration and would not change
parameters specific to the migration method. The
Temis user group answered this question by using
three possible answers (question 5/answers 2–4) with
the majority agreeing with the PetroMod users.
However, Trinity users selected only two different
answers (answers 3 and 4) with the majority (>70%)
of participants changing parameters specific to the
migration method.
• Only the PetroMod user group has a preferred
migration method, which is IP (highest in ques-
tion 4/answer 3 = 33.3%) followed by Darcy
(question 4/answer 2 = 27.8%). However, most
Trinity and Temis users state they use any mi-
gration method to calibrate their basin model
to match fluid observations (highest in question
4/answer 4 for both).
• The Trinity users are the only group in which all
participants use the risking functionalities provided
by the software. In other words, 37.5% of all Temis
users (question 3/answer 2), 27.3% of all PetroMod
users (question 3/answer 2), and 0% of Trinity users
(question 3/answer 2) do not use the software-
provided risking functionalities. The reason for
this outcome might be related to the complexity of
the tools. The more complex the tool, the more
hesitant geologists might be to use it.
• Approximately 30% of all PetroMod users com-
monly do pore pressure prediction (question
9/answer 1) followed by Temis with 22.2%
(question 9/answer 1) and Trinity with 14.3%
(question 9/answer 1). Because PetroMod calcu-
lates pore pressure by default and it is much more
complex to integrate a pressure estimation into
Trinity, the results are not surprising.
• All Trinity users (question 10/answer 4 = 100%)
and most Temis users (question 10/answer 4 =
55.5%) use various methods and data to predict
temperatures. PetroMod is the only user group that
focuses mainly on a heat flow–based approach to
determine the thermal regime (question 10/answer
2 = 45.5%).
• Approximately 37.5% of Temis users use geo-
statistical methods and rock properties from seis-
mic data to populate lithologies in a basin model
(question 12/answer 3), but only 18.5% of Pet-
roMod users (question 12/answer 3) and 0% of
Trinity users do so, although all tools have the
ability to do so.
The above statements are based on Table 15,
which shows the underlying data expressed in per-
centage amounts for each answer, distinguished by
user group.
RECENT AND POSSIBLE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENTS
In the past, basin models were used mainly as a one-
way technology, where the model predictions were
the end product and were not used as inputs for other
disciplines. However, this has changed over the last
two decades, as basin modeling has become more
integrated into an iterative, full-cycle workflow with
higher resolution. Rock properties from seismic data
are fed into basin models to simulate pore pressure
and other rock parameters (Kacewicz and Xu, 2006).
Derived basin model rock or fluid properties can now
be used in seismic analysis and thus provide an op-
portunity for an iterative approach. Reservoir quality
predictions use pressure and temperature histories
BAUR ET AL. 559
560
Table 15. Results Grouped by Preferred Software Tool (%)

Answers Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14

PetroMod
A1 ⇨ 36.7 – ⇨ 31.8 ⇩16.7 ⇩21.1 ⇨75.9 ⇩11.1 ⇩20.0 ⇨ 30.0 ⇩4.5 ⇨ 40.7 ⇨44.4 ⇩21.7 ⇨50.0
A2 ⇨46.7 – ⇨ 27.3 ⇨ 27.8 ⇩15.8 ⇩17.2 ⇩3.7 ⇨48.0 ⇨50.0 ⇨45.5 ⇨ 37.0 ⇨ 33.3 ⇩8.7 ⇩16.7
A3 ⇩16.7 ⇧100.0 ⇨ 36.4 ⇨ 33.3 ⇨52.6 ⇩6.9 ⇧81.5 ⇨ 24.0 ⇩13.3 ⇨ 31.8 ⇩14.8 ⇩18.5 ⇩13.0 ⇩20.8
A4 – – ⇩4.5 ⇩22.2 ⇩10.5 – ⇩3.7 ⇩8.0 ⇩6.7 ⇩18.2 ⇩7.4 ⇩3.7 ⇩4.3 ⇩4.2
A5 – – – – – – – – – – – – ⇨ 34.8 ⇩8.3
A6 – – – – – – – – – – – – ⇩17.4 –
Temis
A1 ⇨ 44.4 – ⇨ 37.5 ⇩12.5 – ⇨ 33.3 – – ⇩22.2 ⇩11.1 ⇨ 37.5 ⇩12.5 ⇨ 33.3 ⇩12.5
A2 ⇨ 44.4 ⇧100.0 ⇨ 37.5 ⇩25.0 ⇩25.0 ⇨50.0 ⇩16.7 ⇨ 44.4 ⇨ 44.4 ⇩22.2 ⇩25.0 ⇨ 37.5 – ⇩12.5
A3 ⇩11.1 – ⇩12.5 ⇩25.0 ⇨62.5 ⇩16.7 ⇨66.7 ⇩11.1 ⇩11.1 ⇩11.1 – ⇨ 37.5 – ⇩25.0
A4 – – ⇩12.5 ⇨ 37.5 ⇩12.5 – ⇩16.7 ⇨ 44.4 ⇩22.2 ⇨55.6 ⇨ 37.5 ⇩12.5 ⇩22.2 ⇨ 37.5
A5 – – – – – – – – – – – – ⇨ 33.3 ⇩12.5

Past, Present, and Future of Basin and Petroleum System Modeling

A6 – – – – – – – – – – – – ⇩11.1 –
Trinity
A1 ⇨ 42.9 ⇧100.0 ⇨ 42.9 – – ⇧85.7 ⇨ 42.9 ⇩14.3 ⇩14.3 – ⇨ 42.9 ⇩28.6 ⇩14.3 ⇨71.4
A2 ⇨57.1 – – – – ⇩14.3 – ⇩14.3 ⇨71.4 – – ⇩28.6 – –
A3 – – ⇨ 42.9 ⇩14.3 ⇩28.6 – ⇨57.1 ⇩28.6 ⇩14.3 – ⇨57.1 – ⇩14.3 ⇩14.3
A4 – – ⇩14.3 ⇧85.7 ⇨71.4 – – ⇨ 42.9 – ⇧100.0 – ⇨ 42.9 ⇩28.6 ⇩14.3
A5 – – – – – – – – – – – – ⇩28.6 –
A6 – – – – – – – – – – – – ⇩14.3 –

The question numbers are indicated by Q1–Q14. Numbers in first column represent the answers available for each question. The percentage levels are indicated by arrows pointing upward (12:00) for very high values, pointing toward
1:30 for high values, pointing toward 3:00 for intermediate values, pointing toward 4:30 for low values, and pointing downward (6:00) for very low values.
derived from basin models as input to the reservoir
quality models, which are used to either predict
porosity or evaluate if the pressure–temperature
history can explain the measured porosities (Taylor
et al., 2010). These are examples where basin model
predictions become important input parameters for
other disciplines, which changes the traditional us-
ability of basin models.
In the future, the BPSM community hopes to
advance research on better risking methods. The
principal physics behind migration is understood,
but which mechanism is dominant on a basin scale
and which anomalies affect migration routes the
most are not yet well understood. Any progress in
these fields (risking and migration) could have
a major effect on the future of BPSM and explo-
ration success rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparing well failure analysis with current research
focus reveals that the principal elements responsible
for dry holes do not receive the research focus they
would need. For example, petroleum charge is a
largely underestimated risk when evaluating pros-
pects, but the research attention charge receives is
minimal. Therefore, a growing BPSM community can
have a significant effect in the future to mitigate
charge related dry holes.
Based on contributions, discussions, and the re-
sults of a survey executed during the AAPG Hedberg
Research Conference in Santa Barbara in April 2016,
the following conclusions can be made.
• Improved understanding of hydrocarbon migration
is needed, as are more flexible risking workflows.
• Source rock maturity and temperature prediction is
well understood with several different workflows
available, all leading to satisfactory results.
• Basin and petroleum system modeling is increasingly
used to predict pore pressure and reservoir quality at
field scale, which opens new opportunities to in-
tegrate BPSM workflows and concepts with other
technologies, such as seismic rock property analysis
and reservoir quality modeling.
• Rock properties are populated in basin models
mainly through GDE maps and not through seis-
mic or geostatistical methods.
REFERENCES CITED
Bjørlykke, K., K. Hoeg, J. I. Faleide, and J. Jahren, 2005, When
do faults in sedimentary basins leak? Stress and deformation
in sedimentary basins; Examples from the North Sea and
Haltenbanken, Offshore Norway, a discussion: AAPG Bul-
letin, v. 89, no. 8, p. 1019–1031, doi:10.1306/04010504118.
Curry, D. J., 2018, Future directions in basin and petroleum
systems modeling: Building more useful models a sur-
vey of the community: AAPG Bulletin, doi:10.1306
/1208171615217152.
Hantschel, T., and A. I. Kauerauf, 2009, Fundamentals of basin
and petroleum systems modeling: Berlin, Springer, 476 p.
Hunt, J. M., 1979, Petroleum geochemistry and geology: San
Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company, 617 p.
Kacewicz, M., and W. Xu, 2006, High-resolution prediction
of rock properties and hydrocarbon charge through an in-
tegrated basin modeling/seismic inversion approach (abs.):
AAPG International Conference and Exhibition, Perth,
Western Australia, November 5–8, 2006, accessed April 14,
2017, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/abstracts
/pdf/2006/intl_perth/abstracts/ndx_kacewicz.pdf.html.
Karlsen, D. A., and J. E. Skeie, 2006, Petroleum migration,
faults and overpressure, Part I: Calibrating basin mod-
elling using petroleum in traps—A review: Journal of
Petroleum Geology, v. 29, p. 227–256, doi:10.1111
/j.1747-5457.2006.00227.x.
Marzi, R., and B. Crowley, 2003, Where did we come from? A
1996–1997 hydrocarbon system technology benchmark
study, in S. J. Duppenbecker and R. W. Marzi, eds.,
Multidimensional basin modeling: AAPG/Datapages
Discover Series 7, p. 1–8.
Rayeva, N., N. Kosnazarova, Z. Arykbayeva, and D. Shaikhina,
2014, Petroleum systems modeling and exploration risk
assessment for the eastern margin of the Precaspian Basin:
SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Astana, Kazakhstan, November12–14, 2014, SPE-
172332-MS, 12 p.,doi:10.2118/172332-MS.
Schoener, R., V. Lueders, R. Ondrak, R. Gaupp, and P. Moeller,
2008, Fluid-rock interactions, in R. Littke, U. Bayer,
D. Gajewski, and S. Nelskamp, eds., Dynamics of com-
plex intracontinental basins. The Central European Basin
System: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 125–153.
Sweeney, J., and A. K. Burnham, 1990, Evaluation of a simple
model of vitrinite reflectance based on chemical kinetics:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, no. 10, p. 1559–1570.
Taylor, R. T., M. R. Giles, L. A. Hathon, T. N. Digg, N. R. Braunsdorf,
G. V. Birbiglia, M. G. Kittridge, C. I. Macaulay, and
I. S. Espejo, 2010, Sandstone diagenesis and reservoir quality
prediction: Methods, myths, and reality: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 94, no. 8, p. 1093–1132, doi:10.1306/04211009123.
Tissot, B. P., and D. H. Welte, 1978, Petroleum formation and
occurrence: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 699 p., doi:10.1007
/978-3-642-96446-6.
Waples, D. W., 1980, Time and temperature in petroleum
formation: Application of Lopatin’s method to petro-
leum exploration: AAPG Bulletin, v. 64, no. 6, p. 916–926.
Weimer, P., and R. M. Slatt, 2006, Petroleum geology of deep-
water settings: AAPG Studies in Geology 57, CD-ROM.
BAUR ET AL. 561